↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive screening in patients with intracranial tumors: validation of the BCSE

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuro-Oncology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Cognitive screening in patients with intracranial tumors: validation of the BCSE
Published in
Journal of Neuro-Oncology, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11060-016-2064-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliane Becker, Elisabeth Steinmann, Maria Könemann, Sonja Gabske, Hubertus Maximilian Mehdorn, Michael Synowitz, Gesa Hartwigsen, Simone Goebel

Abstract

This study presents the first validation of the Brief Cognitive Status Exam (BCSE) against two other screening tools for cognitive impairment in patients with intracranial tumors. 58 patients and 22 matched healthy controls completed the BCSE, the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Patients were additionally tested with a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Based on this assessment, they were classified as cognitively impaired or unimpaired on five cognitive domains. Analyses revealed a comparable feasibility of the BCSE relative to the MoCA and the MMSE, but a smaller range of assessed functions (e.g., no correlation with the domain visual-spatial functions). The ability to separate patients and healthy controls was extremely poor for BCSE and MMSE (sensitivity of 38.6 % and less), but moderate for MoCA (sensitivity 68.97 %). Detection of cognitive impairment in patients was worst with BCSE (sensitivity 37 %; MoCA 92.9 %, MMSE 44.4 %) as compared to neuropsychological testing. Moreover, prediction of cognitive outcome was also worst for the BCSE (AUC = .713, NPV = 50 %). An optimal cut-off of 50.5 increased the results slightly. In summary, the BCSE showed good feasibility but no sufficient results in separating healthy individuals from patients or detecting cognitive impairment in patients. Consequently, as a screening measure, we would recommend the MoCA instead of the BCSE. However, since even the MoCA failed to detect cognitive impairment, our study supports the view that reliable results could only be obtained with a comprehensive neuropsychological battery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Lecturer 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 11 26%
Unknown 13 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Neuroscience 7 17%
Psychology 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,453,763
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#2,242
of 2,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,721
of 397,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#31
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,974 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.